OT: Anyone watching the live feed of BP cutting the stack?

[Coronita]

[quote=Veritas]This is so bogus! Google oil spill and this BP sponsored link pops uphttp://www.bp.com/bodycopyarticle.do?categoryId=1&contentId=7052055&nicam=USCSBaselineCrisis&nisrc=Google&nigrp=Non_Branded_Crisis_Management-_General&niadv=General&nipkw=oil_spill.
I have also heard the that the National Guard is having to go house to house to let people know how to get signed up for some of the programs to help them while they are unemployed because of the spill! Apparently, BP has not wanted to get the word out because of what that will add to their clean up costs.

Here is some info. on how to file a claim in case anyone knows someone from the area:
http://consumereducation.suite101.com/article.cfm/filing-a-claim-with-bp-oil-spill—loss-of-income-and-interim-pay%5B/quote%5D

The thing that’s going to be interesting is that BP’s dividend is apparently very important to a lot of British retirees, as BP makes up a good portion of the retirement/pension benefits in U.K. So it’s interesting that the Brits all the sudden have something to say about this.

Also, as pissed as Americans are, i think the U.S. government hasn’t quite warmed up to the other idea….If BP is driven into bankruptcy, I wonder how if U.S. would feel if BP was sold to something like CNOOC or Petro China LTD. It’s come up in the past with Unocal…where the U.S. objected sales of Unocal to CNOOC, with the concern of national security (energy supply/etc). BP on the other hand is British, so I’d be curious what would stop a Petro China or CNOOC acquisition….BP does have some interesting assets….And there is already speculation that if things continue the way it does, there will be multiple suitors….I wonder if all our lawmakers have thought about that scenario yet too.

I think this will be another case of a company “too big to fail” for the above mentioned reasons, imho, as baffoon handling they are.

This would be a completely different situation if the oil company was say from China or even the U.S. The former, U.S. lawmakers would be clamoring of reasons to kick China out. The later, U.S. lawmakers would be hammering to nationalize/takeover the U.S. asset…But again, we’re dealing with a British company.

The only “ass kicking” that’s gonna get done, is our own asses if a Chinese oil company acquires energy assets that use to provide a good portion to the U.S……..Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idAFLDE65916020100610?rpc=44

UPDATE 2-Under pressure over BP, Cameron says UK ready to help
Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:23am EDT
Stocks

* British prime minister will discuss BP crisis with Obama

* Cameron under pressure at home to stand up for BP

* Doubtful whether can influence situation, wary of U.S. row

(Recasts with Cameron, analyst quotes, previous LONDON)

By Adrian Croft

KABUL, June 10 (Reuters) – Britain stands ready to help BP with its clean-up efforts following the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, Prime Minister David Cameron said on Thursday as he came under intense pressure at home to stand up for the oil giant.

In his first public comments about the crisis, Cameron said he would raise it with U.S. President Obama when they next spoke. That will be a delicate balancing act between upholding British interests and nurturing a key diplomatic relationship.

“This is an environmental catastrophe. BP needs to do everything it can to deal with the situation and the UK government stands ready to help,” Cameron told reporters during a visit to Afghanistan.

“I completely understand the U.S. government’s frustration. The most important thing is to try to mitigate the effects and get to grips with the problem. It’s something I will discuss with the American president when we next talk.”

Officials in London said the two men were scheduled to talk on the phone during the weekend. They last spoke directly on May 11, when Obama was the first world leader to call Cameron to congratulate him just after he became prime minister.

The crisis surrounding BP (BP.L) (BP.N) [nN09136035] is fast turning into a foreign policy headache for Cameron, his first since he took office at the head of a coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats a month ago.

“COOL HEADS”

BP, originally a British company but now one that has global ramifications and a major presence in the United States, accounts for 12-13 percent of dividend payouts in Britain. Pension funds and other investors are heavily reliant on it.

Business and shareholder groups, alarmed that Obama’s anti-BP rhetoric could worsen BP’s problems and fuel a backlash against other British businesses in the United States, are clamouring for Cameron to stand up for the company. [nLDE6590WC]

Even members of Cameron’s own Conservative Party have spoken out, with London Mayor Boris Johnson calling for “cool heads” in Washington and veteran politician Norman Tebbit urging Cameron to “give a large jerk on Mr Obama’s collar”.

The difficulty for Cameron is that even though the plunge in BP’s share price has massive implications for British investors, the company is fully independent from the government and it would be awkward for him to publicly wade into its affairs.

In any case, it is doubtful that he would be able to make any impact on events unfolding across the Atlantic, with Obama under pressure from his own electorate to be tough on BP and mid-term elections coming up this year.

In addition, the so-called “special relationship” between London and Washington is Britain’s most important international tie and Cameron will be wary of stoking tensions with a crucial ally so early in his tenure.

“They’ve got too many things to be working on bilaterally, from Afghanistan to Iran, for the next four or five years to allow this issue to become publicly aired as one where the two leaders are involved, each supporting a different side of the argument,” said Robin Niblett, director of the Chatham House international affairs think-tank in London.

“What is said privately is different. I would be surprised if British officials were not communicating privately their concern that this could get out of hand,” he told Reuters. (Additional reporting by Estelle Shirbon and Tim Castle in London; writing by Estelle Shirbon; Editing by Charles Dick)

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]
This would be a completely different situation if the oil company was say from China or even the U.S. The former, U.S. lawmakers would be clamoring of reasons to kick China out. The later, U.S. lawmakers would be hammering to nationalize/takeover the U.S. asset…But again, we’re dealing with a British company.[/quote]

So are you playing the race card here?

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]
This would be a completely different situation if the oil company was say from China or even the U.S. The former, U.S. lawmakers would be clamoring of reasons to kick China out. The later, U.S. lawmakers would be hammering to nationalize/takeover the U.S. asset…But again, we’re dealing with a British company.[/quote]

So are you playing the race card here?

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]
This would be a completely different situation if the oil company was say from China or even the U.S. The former, U.S. lawmakers would be clamoring of reasons to kick China out. The later, U.S. lawmakers would be hammering to nationalize/takeover the U.S. asset…But again, we’re dealing with a British company.[/quote]

So are you playing the race card here?

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]
This would be a completely different situation if the oil company was say from China or even the U.S. The former, U.S. lawmakers would be clamoring of reasons to kick China out. The later, U.S. lawmakers would be hammering to nationalize/takeover the U.S. asset…But again, we’re dealing with a British company.[/quote]

So are you playing the race card here?

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]
This would be a completely different situation if the oil company was say from China or even the U.S. The former, U.S. lawmakers would be clamoring of reasons to kick China out. The later, U.S. lawmakers would be hammering to nationalize/takeover the U.S. asset…But again, we’re dealing with a British company.[/quote]

So are you playing the race card here?

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1][quote=flu]
This would be a completely different situation if the oil company was say from China or even the U.S. The former, U.S. lawmakers would be clamoring of reasons to kick China out. The later, U.S. lawmakers would be hammering to nationalize/takeover the U.S. asset…But again, we’re dealing with a British company.[/quote]

So are you playing the race card here?[/quote]

Brian, you must be smoking crack. I don’t get where your connection to a race card has anything to do with this…
Nice try, but fail…

It’s about political relationships between nations, or lack thereof..

Have you read about the Unocal deal, and the objections to that merger from CNOOC? Probably not…Folks went on record saying it was a treat to national security..

Consider yourself enlightened.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aVh3wHWhGqXg&refer=asia-redirectoldpage

July 13 (Bloomberg) — Cnooc Ltd.’s $18.5 billion bid for Unocal Corp. is an “ominous” move by China to dominate energy resources for the benefit of its economy and military, Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy plans to tell Congress.

Gaffney is scheduled to appear today before a House Armed Services Committee hearing, the latest sign of the opposition Cnooc faces in Congress as it tries to get Unocal’s board and shareholders to abandon a lower offer from Chevron Corp., the second-biggest U.S. oil company. Cnooc is 70-percent owned by state-controlled China National Offshore Oil Corp.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/15/AR2005071501889.html

Guess who ended up buying Unocal at a lower offer?

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1][quote=flu]
This would be a completely different situation if the oil company was say from China or even the U.S. The former, U.S. lawmakers would be clamoring of reasons to kick China out. The later, U.S. lawmakers would be hammering to nationalize/takeover the U.S. asset…But again, we’re dealing with a British company.[/quote]

So are you playing the race card here?[/quote]

Brian, you must be smoking crack. I don’t get where your connection to a race card has anything to do with this…
Nice try, but fail…

It’s about political relationships between nations, or lack thereof..

Have you read about the Unocal deal, and the objections to that merger from CNOOC? Probably not…Folks went on record saying it was a treat to national security..

Consider yourself enlightened.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aVh3wHWhGqXg&refer=asia-redirectoldpage

July 13 (Bloomberg) — Cnooc Ltd.’s $18.5 billion bid for Unocal Corp. is an “ominous” move by China to dominate energy resources for the benefit of its economy and military, Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy plans to tell Congress.

Gaffney is scheduled to appear today before a House Armed Services Committee hearing, the latest sign of the opposition Cnooc faces in Congress as it tries to get Unocal’s board and shareholders to abandon a lower offer from Chevron Corp., the second-biggest U.S. oil company. Cnooc is 70-percent owned by state-controlled China National Offshore Oil Corp.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/15/AR2005071501889.html

Guess who ended up buying Unocal at a lower offer?

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1][quote=flu]
This would be a completely different situation if the oil company was say from China or even the U.S. The former, U.S. lawmakers would be clamoring of reasons to kick China out. The later, U.S. lawmakers would be hammering to nationalize/takeover the U.S. asset…But again, we’re dealing with a British company.[/quote]

So are you playing the race card here?[/quote]

Brian, you must be smoking crack. I don’t get where your connection to a race card has anything to do with this…
Nice try, but fail…

It’s about political relationships between nations, or lack thereof..

Have you read about the Unocal deal, and the objections to that merger from CNOOC? Probably not…Folks went on record saying it was a treat to national security..

Consider yourself enlightened.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aVh3wHWhGqXg&refer=asia-redirectoldpage

July 13 (Bloomberg) — Cnooc Ltd.’s $18.5 billion bid for Unocal Corp. is an “ominous” move by China to dominate energy resources for the benefit of its economy and military, Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy plans to tell Congress.

Gaffney is scheduled to appear today before a House Armed Services Committee hearing, the latest sign of the opposition Cnooc faces in Congress as it tries to get Unocal’s board and shareholders to abandon a lower offer from Chevron Corp., the second-biggest U.S. oil company. Cnooc is 70-percent owned by state-controlled China National Offshore Oil Corp.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/15/AR2005071501889.html

Guess who ended up buying Unocal at a lower offer?

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1][quote=flu]
This would be a completely different situation if the oil company was say from China or even the U.S. The former, U.S. lawmakers would be clamoring of reasons to kick China out. The later, U.S. lawmakers would be hammering to nationalize/takeover the U.S. asset…But again, we’re dealing with a British company.[/quote]

So are you playing the race card here?[/quote]

Brian, you must be smoking crack. I don’t get where your connection to a race card has anything to do with this…
Nice try, but fail…

It’s about political relationships between nations, or lack thereof..

Have you read about the Unocal deal, and the objections to that merger from CNOOC? Probably not…Folks went on record saying it was a treat to national security..

Consider yourself enlightened.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aVh3wHWhGqXg&refer=asia-redirectoldpage

July 13 (Bloomberg) — Cnooc Ltd.’s $18.5 billion bid for Unocal Corp. is an “ominous” move by China to dominate energy resources for the benefit of its economy and military, Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy plans to tell Congress.

Gaffney is scheduled to appear today before a House Armed Services Committee hearing, the latest sign of the opposition Cnooc faces in Congress as it tries to get Unocal’s board and shareholders to abandon a lower offer from Chevron Corp., the second-biggest U.S. oil company. Cnooc is 70-percent owned by state-controlled China National Offshore Oil Corp.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/15/AR2005071501889.html

Guess who ended up buying Unocal at a lower offer?

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1][quote=flu]
This would be a completely different situation if the oil company was say from China or even the U.S. The former, U.S. lawmakers would be clamoring of reasons to kick China out. The later, U.S. lawmakers would be hammering to nationalize/takeover the U.S. asset…But again, we’re dealing with a British company.[/quote]

So are you playing the race card here?[/quote]

Brian, you must be smoking crack. I don’t get where your connection to a race card has anything to do with this…
Nice try, but fail…

It’s about political relationships between nations, or lack thereof..

Have you read about the Unocal deal, and the objections to that merger from CNOOC? Probably not…Folks went on record saying it was a treat to national security..

Consider yourself enlightened.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aVh3wHWhGqXg&refer=asia-redirectoldpage

July 13 (Bloomberg) — Cnooc Ltd.’s $18.5 billion bid for Unocal Corp. is an “ominous” move by China to dominate energy resources for the benefit of its economy and military, Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy plans to tell Congress.

Gaffney is scheduled to appear today before a House Armed Services Committee hearing, the latest sign of the opposition Cnooc faces in Congress as it tries to get Unocal’s board and shareholders to abandon a lower offer from Chevron Corp., the second-biggest U.S. oil company. Cnooc is 70-percent owned by state-controlled China National Offshore Oil Corp.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/15/AR2005071501889.html

Guess who ended up buying Unocal at a lower offer?

[Arraya]

Sarah Palin Demands Hardball Regulations and a Takeover of BP
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/sarah-palin-demands-hardb_b_606774.html

[Arraya]

Sarah Palin Demands Hardball Regulations and a Takeover of BP
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/sarah-palin-demands-hardb_b_606774.html

[Arraya]

Sarah Palin Demands Hardball Regulations and a Takeover of BP
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/sarah-palin-demands-hardb_b_606774.html

[Arraya]

Sarah Palin Demands Hardball Regulations and a Takeover of BP
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/sarah-palin-demands-hardb_b_606774.html

[Author]

Posts